Canadian Academic Health Science Centres: Developing a Framework to Address Compensation, Academic Productivity, Performance and Quality
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Academic leaders and policymakers are faced with a series of difficult and complex decisions around methods of assessing and compensating academic physicians with regards to their performance. Despite the introduction of Alternative Funding Plans by many provincial governments, concerns around the reliance on clinical revenues to fund components of the medical school’s academic mission, increased competition for research grants, physician compensation costs coupled with the rising costs of education and health care delivery, the prevalence of institutional ranking systems and pressures to demonstrate accountability, have all endured. While anecdotal evidence on the types of compensation and academic productivity frameworks exists, studies or literature on the prevalence of these models and their effectiveness within Canadian Academic Health Science Centres (AHSCs) are limited. \nThis dissertation uses an emergent, multi-phase, mixed methods research methodology to explore the methods used to compensate and assess Canadian academic physicians. This dissertation provides methodological, empirical and theoretical contributions to knowledge. Empirically, the phase 1 national survey of academic leaders achieved a 61% response rate (39 respondents), and confirmed that AHSCs use various systems to compensate, assess and incentivize academic physicians. Phase 2 consisted of three mixed methods case studies (three institutions, three provinces, four clinical academic departments and five different compensation models) to analyze the academic productivity of 150 academic physicians over a five-year period between 2006 and 2011. Qualitative data were gleaned from the interviews of academic leaders. Methodologically, a new quantitative and bibliometric assessment model – the K-MAAP© – was developed to analyze the research outputs and impact of those included in the sample, calculate research return-on-investment and efficiency. Theoretically, elements of contract theory, incentives, and behavioural economics were utilized. Behavioural economics is an emergent, hybrid field that seeks to reconcile the gap between standard economic theories and cognitive theories by showing how people actually do behave, and not just how they are expected to behave. A new type of incentive which emerged during the case study research – called a “placebo incentive” – was also described. \nSeveral policy implications are presented including methods to fund AHSCs; methods to fund academic physicians; the use of incentives in academic medicine; accountability, metrics and productivity assessments; and systems-level issues related to the alignment of incentives and compensation programs. This information is important for policy makers, AHSCs, hospitals, physician associations, practice plans and academic leaders as they seek research addressed at understanding the efficacy of the models used to compensate, assess, motivate and reward academic physicians for scholarly tasks.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».